Janet Napolitano is no stranger to controversy.
When she was named the president of the University of California last year, her appointment was marred by protests across the UC campuses and widespread anger from students at being left out of the University’s decision-making process.
Fresh off of a stint as secretary of homeland security and without a background in education, Napolitano seemed to be the wrong choice to lead California’s flagship public research university system.
Similar sentiments were again expressed by students on Tuesday, when the Undergraduate Students Association Council passed a vote expressing no confidence in Napolitano and the regents in response to a recent approval of a tuition hike plan that may raise tuition by up to 5 percent per year for the next five years if the state does not provide additional funding.
But students fighting with all their energies against Napolitano are misguided – her experience as a politician is exactly what the UC needs in its president. Napolitano is rightfully leveraging the prospect of tuition increases in exchange for additional funding for the UC from the state during budget discussions next year.
Napolitano’s tuition hike plan may seem aggressive and proactive, but her strategy is most definitely warranted considering the numerous times that the state has refrained from providing additional funding for the UC.
One of the state’s most notable failures to fund the UC came when the regents supported the education initiative Proposition 30, so championed by Gov. Jerry Brown, with the understanding that its passage would provide the UC with at least 6 percent of the revenue from the bill, said Dianne Klein, a UC spokeswoman. However, the state has only provided 3.2 percent — or roughly half of what was expected from the proposition, Klein added.
Furthermore, during budget discussions earlier this year, the state legislature approved an additional $100 million for the UC, but after discussions between the legislature and Brown, the funding was removed from the budget, Klein said. Then, the state legislature approved $50 million across the UC for necessary deferred maintenance. Brown line-item vetoed that provision.
Since 2013, the state has had the UC in a choke hold because of a funding agreement that guarantees up to 5 percent base increases in state funding in exchange for a tuition freeze. However, those increases disappear if the UC raises tuition.
It is about time that the regents change their approach from taking what the state gives the UC to challenging the state directly for more funding. Especially considering that despite California having a budget surplus in the billions earlier this year, Brown has not planned additional funding outside of the base increases for the UC.
It is unacceptable that higher education is continuously marginalized by state politicians. The state clearly does not view higher education as a high priority, so Napolitano is forced to hardball the state to re-evaluate the value of higher education.
Napolitano’s hard-line approach toward the state shows that she is willing to fight the state for the students. Despite all the negative feedback regarding the tuition hike plan, the additional revenue from the proposed tuition hikes would go toward goals that would help the UC fulfill its mission, such as enrolling more students and lowering the student-to-faculty ratio.
While the implementation of the tuition hikes would hurt students, the goal of the tuition hike plan is to pressure the state to prevent the hikes by providing the UC the additional funding that it needs.
Napolitano should continue to play politics with the state to reach a compromise that is attuned with the intentions of California’s Master Plan For Higher Education – an efficient UC system with more financial resources geared toward providing an accessible and affordable high-quality education for California students.
Is there a difference between The Daily Bruin and The Onion this year? I can’t tell.
It’s an opinion article by one of their writers. While I disagree with this writer and am actually very concerned of what he wrote, I’m sure this isn’t a reflection of The Daily Bruin! I’m hoping it’s not, at least.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t really make any sense. Tuition increases – which are going to make higher education essentially unaffordable for huge parts of the California population – are a good idea because they’re designed to prevent future tuition increases?
If these tuition hikes were really about protecting students, we’d be seeing workers being paid better wages, TAs and new professors earning enough to live above the poverty line, smaller class sizes, pensions for people who work here, more scholarships, diversity funding…so many things. That’s not happening. Instead, school administration keeps expanding and expanding for no real reason, thousands of administrators are getting paid more than the Governor of California, money gets poured into building projects that aren’t connected to education, class sizes are still huge, and most of our workers qualify for federal aid, they’re paid so low. No matter what the state’s role is in this, the people who run the UC system are not working for us, with the money we already have.
These hikes aren’t about helping students, and they’re turning our school system into an increasingly unequal, private space that very few people are able to afford. They’re a betrayal of what the school set out to do in the first place, and it’s our right to protest them.
You misunderstood the piece. Yes, it is the threat of tuition increases that gives the best hope of restoring state funding. Napolitano’s move is deliberate and smart.
The funding, whether it comes from state contributions or tuition revenue, does enable TAs and professors to be paid. The funding must come from somewhere. If it does not come from the state, it must come from tuition revenue. Napolitano is arguing that tuition hikes are unnecessary as long as the state does its part.
I understand that, for sure. It’s important that funding comes from the state. But to say that Napolitano is ‘fighting’ the state by putting the burden on students, and all the people who’ll never be able to afford school now, won’t help students at all. These weren’t even ‘threats’, since the Regents announced the increases just before the vote and without notifying students at any of the UCs. Since Napolitano’s decision, I’ve heard about so many current students who are desperately trying to graduate early now, just so they don’t have to drop out. Is that the legacy Napolitano wants to have? A UC system that only exists for people like me who don’t have to worry too much about affording school? This is kind of a tragedy, and just more evidence that these hikes are not about helping students in any way.
What about the 7000+ administrators at the UC who earn more than the Governor? What about the millions the Regents (many of whom work for large banks) have lost in risky financial deals? Why are we using the tuition and state funding in such a seriously unequal way? It’s a betrayal, I think. I’m not saying these people are evil, but we need a fairer and more accountable system: students and workers representing us on the Regents board, for instance. We just do, if we’re to seriously call the UC an admirable place.
I completely understand and agree with your argument, but I do not believe the tuition hike will provide better education. If you looked into the budgeting habits of the UC, you would see that it would be spent on “$50 teakettles and $80 doormats,” which is proven when the Regents approved raises for a select few among themselves. If the tuition hike is increased, I challenge them to document where specifically the money goes to creating “higher quality education.” If this cannot be done, then there is something seriously wrong in the current UC system.